I am now the happy owner of a really nice MacBook Pro; and one of the things I wanted to do when I got it was program on it.
Because I know very little about programing I find it really hard to wrap my head around a lot of the concepts around it. Like what a library is; or what a class is; or why object-oreinted programing is so cool. So it seems appropriate that if I were to start programing on a Mac I would start with Applescript. It seems like a good way of just dipping your toe into the deep, dark, turbulent waters of programing.
Learning a programing language reminds me a lot like learning an instrument–if you aren’t enjoying it right away, your not going to enjoy it from that point on. (I’m speaking from personal experience.) So it seems like a good sign when after tinkering with my first script I enjoyed it right away; even if it was a simple “Hello World.”
Now, after only a few days into it, my scripts are becoming longer and more complex and more fun to write. They still have no real useful application, but at least they WORK.
My latest creation is a script that will take all of the tracks from whatever playlist your listening to and adds them to a new playlist of your choosing. This is a little useful if you have a podcast that you don’t like listening to directly from the “Podcast” playlist in iTunes.
The code reads thus:
setdialogResulttodisplay dialog “What do you want to call your new playlist?” default answer “” buttons {“OK”} default button 1
iftext returnedofdialogResultis “” then
display dialog “You must enter a name for your new playlist!”
The fun thing about Applescript is that it is so high-level that it’s easy to explain. That, combined with the logic of the code makes it very fun for me.
“Set” is how you assign a variable; in this case “dialogResult” is set to display a message saying “What do you want to call your new playlist?” From there it adds one button titled “OK”.
Now, before we start doing anything, we want to make sure that what the error prone human entered is a viable entry. Since this is just the name of a playlist, the only real name that is un-useable is literally nothing. So we use that definition of computing: The if-then statement.
Starting with “if” the code is saying “If what the user entered nothing, then tell them that their title cannot be blank, and end the script.”
From there it says “If there is anything else–meaning, if the user entered anything other than nothing, then go ahead and continue with the script.
Next the script is asking for iTunes attention. Then it is telling iTunes to make a new playlist with the name specified earlier. Then, the script is asking for the location of all of the files in the current playlist. Once the script has that, the script tells iTunes to add all of those songs to the playlist that was made earlier.
Beyond that the script is just saying that this is the end of the if-then statement and the end of the script.
Yes, today, 40 years ago, man found himself induced by a gravitational force generated from a celestial body that, for the first time, was not earthly. That’s the best way I can rephrase what everyone else is saying today.
I still think that the mission to the moon is still the best testament to date of mankind’s ability to accomplish whatever they want in the amount of time they want if they are eager enough.
It’s a shame Walter Cronkite couldn’t hang on a few more days to be here for this.
So, I hear you want to learn how to use Skype. By navigating to this site you have already taken the first step towards advancing your knowledge of the workings of Voice Over IP.
After you install the program, Skype is going to ask you to sign in, but first you’re going to need to create a Skype account.
To do so, click “Don’t have a Skype Name?” [Read more →]
My dad and I at Disneyland for my 15th birthday in 2005. Shot from the Mark Twain.
Yes, today is my birthday. Celebrating 19 years of sycophantism. Incidentally, it’s also Lindsay Lohan’s birthday. It seems that all the beautiful, sexually charismatic, lesbians—I believe you only have me twice, so far—are born on the same day.
Short answer: No; but, I hope that you would expect me to delve deeper than that. Attempting to prove that America is not a Christian nation seems to carry with it the same feeling of trying to prove that the sky is blue. It is a flat out false statement.
The heaviest ammunition I can fire back with is the first line of our first amendment to our Bill of Rights, which says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That’s all I really need to say. At the top of the list on how this country will be ran, the first thing you read is “No official religion.” As a consolation for the religious, it also says that you cannot be restricted from believing whatever you want.
Even though you’re supposed to save the best for last, I still find it appropriate to place that argument on top. It seems that over the years the religious have disregarded that blunt passage from The First Amendment, and decided to push it aside in the name of being good Christians.
From the start, the United States functioned as a secular nation. 6 years after The Bill of Rights was signed into law, our second president, John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli in 1791. This treaty attempted to established peace between the United States and the Muslim state of Tripoli. Barbary pirates were capturing passing ships including American ones and forcing its crew and passengers into slavery. The United States had no quarrel with any Muslim nation and the treaty tried to convey that the United States was not responsible for the crusades and was not built on the foundation that justified it. The article reads as follows:
Article 11: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The entire history of the treaty is quite interesting; unfortunately, this treaty proved insufficient to establish peace and had to be followed up with the United States Navy and Marines. But notwithstanding, we have President John Adams reaffirming that we are not a Christian nation. Humorously, the paranoid Christians among us who think that President Obama is turning America into a Muslim nation might not want to disregard this little peace of history, because in the same breath that says we are not a Christian nation also says we’re also not a Muslim one either.
Thus far I have cited you two documents endorsed by two founding fathers who in their lifetime would go on to become president. So it’s not the case when President Obama mentions that we are not a Christian nation that he is starting a new trend. Indeed, he is reaffirming something that seems to have been neglected for some time. This entire issue has arisen because of at least three occasions when President Obama has cited that America is not as religious as some would like to believe.
The first instance where President Obama confessed our secular constitution was during his inauguration when he spoke that “We are a nation of Christians, and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and non-believers.” It was amusing to hear that some were offended by his acknowledgment of 3.6 million people. Ironically, I did find it a little offensive when former presidential candidate and former governor Mike Huckabee agreed with President Obama by saying “I think its an honest assessment that there are certainly many people in this country that are not necessarily believers in anything other than themselves.” As Liberal Viewer articulated better than I can, “I really don’t think the only two choices are theism or narcissism.”
The next instance where President Obama quite bluntly stated that we are not a Christian nation was in Turkey during his visit to Europe in April of this year. He spelled out that, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens….” It came as a surprise to me that some Christians took offense from that statement. Especially considering that the statement meant that he was not taking favorites. It was a little embarrassing to see people get upset over a statement that is such a simple truth.
Almost as a follow-up to the rang felt by Christians after President Obama made that statement in Turkey, Christians expressed even more distress when they heard that President Obama called America a Muslim nation. A statement like that was too outrageous to be true and it turned out it wasn’t, but that didn’t stop the Conservative media from propagating the misinterpretation. President Obama made this statement just before his trip to Cairo and reads thus:
And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. And so there’s got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples.
Christians compounded his earlier statement “We are not a Christian nation,” with his new misinterpreted “We are one of the biggest Muslim nations,” and outrage insured. His Turkey statement was to tout America’s tolerance, and his pre-Cairo statement was to tell all rational Muslims that we don’t hate them. He was making the point that many Muslims live in America and that they are treated just as any other citizen.
Starting with the contributions of our presidents from the beginning of our country’s formation and continuing with our current President, they persist to reaffirm that our country is in no constitutional sense a religious one. We can add President Obama’s statements to the ones made by John Adams and James Madison and many other important American leaders. Not only should Christians cease in criticizing President Obama’s statements regarding our secular country, because not only in doing so they’re criticizing many other American leaders whom they might appreciate, but they are also demonstrating their ignorance that borders on the arrogant.
President Obama’s inauguration speech where he acknowledged the non-believers can be watched at approximately 14:24 on the White House’s YouTube channel here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PuHGKnboNY
Liberal Viewer’s YouTube video where he comments on Mike Huckabee’s statement regarding Presidet Obama acknowledging the non-believers, and the rest of his videos can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twoXZE9U0Io
Apparently Mike Arrington (TechCrunch) was on the “B” list for review copies of the Palm Pre and decided to be huffy with Leo, who let him have it back. At some point people need to realize that Mike Arrington is indeed a douche. He once stiffed us at Cranky Geeks, never showed up and never apologized or even bothered to call.
I has no idea that Leo Laporte had it in him. Good for him. How dare Mike Arrington accuse Leo of slanting his review. I was waiting for Leo to say “We’ll do it live!”
When Arrington said “What are you going to do about it” cartoon steam came out of my ears. What did he expect Leo to say? “Come over to your house and punch you in the face.”
Arrington’s a pasty faced “troll,” as Leo describes. What an ass-hole.
At first I was reluctant to talk about this subject because it would have been all personal and psychological—all about me, and how I thought Meet the Spy was creepy. But now, after having a chance to ferment, I can actually offer you something that you might actually care about.
I don’t think I overstep my expertise (or lack there of) when I say that consistency in video games is very important. I’ve seen my favorite video games slip into cart racers and die because they ran out of ideas. Inconsistency flags went up in my mind when I watched Meet the Spy.
I can’t fault Valve for trying something different, and Meet the Spy was certainly that. In some ways it was for the better. The look and feel of the cinematography mimicked that of a live action movie, something that needs to be seen with 3-D animation.
Meet the Spy suffered similar and unique issues relative to the other character introduction videos. Not to be too nit-picky (but it’s a critique, so what the hell) but these videos are often laced with cheap lines, as if they couldn’t think of anything better to say, i.e.: “Use more gun,” “They got more *beep* than they got the likes of me” “She weighs one hundred fifty kilograms and fires two hundred dollar,” blah, blah, blah. Meet the Spy uses lines like these. Not only that but they ran with them. When the Spy sad, “your mother,” that was funny, but then they go a long way with that little joke by actually making the effort to show photos. Everything up until this point was great. When the Heavy showed the Soldier the photo and you saw the Soldiers reaction, which was near priceless. However, from that point on, it got bad.
On the unique side, this video was dark—it wasn’t dark comedy it was just dark, it was too serious. Up until now it’s been all smiles, but when the Spy disguised himself as the Medic, there was a tinge of evil; something that does not belong in Team Fortress 2. I had too much sympathy for the characters getting killed. I almost thought the red spy was the enemy. These videos are supposed to show-off the character to demonstrate their skills and personality. Perhaps the Spy doesn’t have much of a personality, but every other character has been charismatic and positive. The Spy’s character seemed inconsistent.
We don’t know much about the Spy, but I don’t think they did him justice. They made him too serious. Listen to his laugh in the game; the guy is not without a sense of humor or character flaws (see below).
Another slight inconsistency is in the story style. Every other video, debatably with Meet the Soldier, has had the character addressing the camera. Meet the Spy looked more like a scene from a movie. It seems more productive to have these videos in an interview format to better convey the quality of the characters personality. Nothing is really learned about the character in this one.
I think Valve wished it could make feature films. Either that, or they wish to bring a more cinematic quality to their games. Valve posses the artistic talent, the technical skill in model making, animation, and world creation, and the innovation to make movies. This video seemed like a cry-out to do that. They pulled more expression and more drama out of these characters than I have ever seen before. But that’s not the point of the videos, again, inconsistency.
To sum, the video seemed to lack focus. It was inconsistent compared to its predecessors in both mood and style. It did not accomplish what the other videos did in regards to showing off the characters personality. The videos are almost like propaganda for the character, and in this one I felt sympathy for the people the Spy killed. It’s still entertaining, but a little gruesome. On it’s own, it’s not bad, but it doesn’t do the game justice.
You know, it is a shame. The new “Meet the Spy” video was quite darker than its predecessors. It’s also a shame that there was evil in this video. Yes, there was violence, and blood, and insanity, but never evil. I figure Valve was matching the mood of the character. But dam…talk about a head-shot.
Apparently someone at Valve leaked it. I think I will have to talk about that and more later.
I started working on these a little while ago. I’ll probably continue with them throughout time. Some of them are a little more obscure than others. Enjoy, I hope…
